DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. This matter has been placed for our consideration resultant to a reference made by a learned Single Judge quad hoc certain issues relating to the quantification of stamp duty payable in certain cases of partition deeds and release deeds between relatives and other close members of a family under the provisions of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (the Act for brevity). This reference has been necessitated because of an apparent conflict being noticed between the judgments delivered by two different Division Benches of this Court, namely State of Kerala vs. Jose, 2013 (3) KLT 412 (hereinafter referred to as Jose for convenience) and State of Kerala vs. Shibu, 2015 (4) KLT 131 (hereinafter referred to as Shibu for ease).

2. The apparent dissonance in the above two judgments, as felt by the learned Single Judge, is available in the Order of Reference and we deem it idoneous that it be read in the same manner as is recorded by the learned Judge and for such purpose we extract the relevant paragraphs of the same as under:

REFERENCE ORDER

(Paragraphs 2 to 5 are omitted being statement of facts)

“6. In Jose (supra), the document involved was a partition deed between a person and the legatee of his deceased brother who is none other than the heir of the deceased brother. As in W.P. (C) No. 18982 of 2017, the Sub Registry took the view in the said case also that a partition deed between a person and the legatee of his/her deceased sibling would not fall under Serial No. 42(a)(i) of the Schedule. This Court took the view that the purpose of the provision contained in Serial No. 42(a)(i) of the Schedule being to extend the benefit of lesser stamp duty for partition deeds executed between close relatives, the provision has to be interpreted liberally to include documents in the nature of one involved in the said case also within its fold. In other words, the view taken by this Court was that the benefit of lesser stamp duty provided for under S. No. 42(a)(i) of the Schedule shall not be denied merely for the reason that one or more of the parties to the partition deed would not fall within the definition of “family” contained therein and if person/persons who would not come within the definition of “family” are either heirs or legal representatives of person/persons who would fall under the definition of “family” the benefit of the provision shall be extended to them. If the said view is accepted, the petitioners in these cases have to succeed, as the partition deed involved in W.P. (C) No. 18982 of 2017 would fall under Serial No. 42(a)(i) of the Schedule had Karunakaran been a party to the document and the release deed involved in W.P. (C) No. 16099 of 2017 would fall under Serial No. 48(a)(i) of the Schedule had the release deed been in favour of the deceased father of the petitioner.

7. But, it is seen that the Division Bench in State of Kerala vs. Shibu (supra) took the view that the benefit of the lesser stamp duty provided for in Serial No. 48(a)(i) of the Schedule can be extended only if the person in whose favour the release deed is executed is one among the relatives of the executants as mentioned therein. In that case, the document involved was substantially one executed by the siblings in favour of the son of one of their deceased siblings. This Court held that the said document would not fall under Serial No. 48(a)(i) of the Schedule. In so far as the person in whose favour the release deed involved in the said case was executed was the son of the deceased sibling of the executants, the document would certainly fall under Serial No. 48(a)(i) of the Schedule had the liberal view taken by this Court in State of Kerala and another v. Jose (supra) been adopted in that case. In the said view of the matter, according to me, there is conflict between the views taken by the Division Benches of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Shibu (supra) and in State of Kerala and Another vs. Jose (supra). The issues, theref